Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

To not eat meat with milk: To not eat meat with milk that has been cooked together, as it is stated (Exodus 34:26), “you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” And this verse comes to forbid eating and deriving benefit (pleasure) from the meat with milk. And let it not be difficult to you — [that] if so, why is its prohibition not stated explicitly, as “you shall not eat,” and [instead] expressed with an expression of cooking. As the answer to this [is] because there is a novelty in the prohibition of its eating above the eating of the other prohibitions. As with other prohibitions, the liability is only if he enjoys his eating. But here even if he does not enjoy his eating, once he swallows it — and even if he swallows it hot and he burns his throat with it, and similar to it — he is lashed nonetheless. [It is] as they, may their memory be blessed, said in Pesachim 25a, “For this reason did [the Torah] not write, ‘eating’ in [the verse] itself: To say that one is lashed [even when consumed] not in the way of its enjoyment.” And nonetheless, we do not administer lashes for it unless it is by way of cooking (Chullin 108a), according to the language that the verse expressed its prohibition.

And even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b) that that which the prohibition of cooking is written three times in the Torah is to teach the prohibition of eating, the prohibition of cooking and the prohibition of benefiting — it is only fit for us to count two [of them] in the tally of negative commandments; as the prohibition of eating and benefiting is one thing. [It is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b), “Every place that it is stated, ‘You (singular) shall not eat,’ ‘You (plural) shall not eat,’ both the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of benefiting are implied.” As the Torah expresses all of the enjoyments more generally with an expression of eating, since it is a constant enjoyment for a person, and he needs it; and like the matter that is written (Exodus 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank” — that it calls enjoyment “eating.”

And if you will grab me [and say], “If so, why are three prohibitions written?” As two suffice, according to what I have said. [Then] one can answer you that certainly if in [one] place it was written, “You shall not cook,” to teach about the prohibition of cooking and in another place, “You shall not eat,” which would include the prohibition of benefiting and the prohibition of eating, as we have said — it would have been correct not to write the third. As there would not be any need for it, since we would have already learned eating and benefiting from “You shall not eat” — from the principle in our hand, that included in eating is the implication about benefiting. But now that eating is not mentioned in any place, we would not have learned [about] benefiting without the third negative [statement]. And you should not ask further, “And why did the [Torah] not write, ‘You shall not eat’ in one of them and it would suffice with two?” As I have informed you that it was for a purpose that Scripture did not mention it with the expression of eating, as the liability for it is even if it is not in the way of its enjoyment. We have learned from here that the intention of that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b) “One is for the prohibition of eating, one is for the prohibition of benefiting and one is for the prohibition of cooking,” is not that the third verse be a [separate] negative commandment, but rather that we need to learn from it about benefiting. And blessed be [the One] Who chose their words.

We have written (Sefer HaChinukh 92) what we could from the roots of the commandment from the angle of the simple meaning, in the prohibition of cooking in Parashat Eleh HaMishpatim.

From the laws of the commandment: That which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 113a), that the prohibition of meat with milk from Torah writ is only with meat of a beast (domesticated animal) that is pure (kosher); but not from an impure beast, not from a [wild] animal — even a pure [one] — and not from a bird, whether pure or impure. And they relied for this upon that which it is written, “kid” three times in the Torah, which is an expression of exclusion, as it should have [otherwise] written, “meat.” And the explanation about this came (Chullin 113a), “‘A kid’ and not an impure beast, ‘a kid’ and not a [wild] animal, ‘a kid’ and not a bird.” And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said that it is permitted to cook these three with milk, and they are permitted in benefit. But they, may their memory be blessed, prohibited them in eating to make a fence for the meat of a beast, which is forbidden by Torah writ, so that people do not switch [one] meat for [another] meat. And hence since the thing is [plausible] that [one] meat will be switched with [another] meat, they were also stringent with this fence, exactly like they were with the meat of beast in some matters, such that they forbade that they be brought up [together] on a table at all. And according to the opinion of some commentators, they obligated about them that there be a pause between their eating and the eating of cheese, like with the main prohibition, which is the meat of a beast. But with the meat of fish and locusts, they did not make a fence with them at all, as their meat is not at all similar to the meat of a beast, and people will not come to err in this.

And they were also stringent in this matter according to some of the commentators to [deduce] a novel prohibition in this, more than in other prohibitions of food (Chullin 108a). [It is] in that with the matter of meat with milk, if milk is mixed with meat, and there is not sixty parts in the piece of meat corresponding to the milk, we see both of them as one piece of prohibited food. And if this piece fell into a stew of meat or a stew of milk, we measure against all of [the piece]. And this is what, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 108a) “The piece itself becomes a carcass.” And the reason is because their mixture is what makes them prohibited. And hence, after they have mixed, behold, they are like a piece of carcass. And with other prohibitions, it is not such; as [with] prohibited food that is mixed with a piece of permissible food and there is not sixty parts in the permissible food to negate the prohibited food, and afterwards they fall into a stew, we only measure according to the measurement of the prohibited food that fell into it, and [the permissible portion of the piece] itself helps to [count against] the prohibited food. [This is] because that piece does not become a carcass, and [so] the permissible food in it is found to be like the rest of the permissible food in the stew — and [so] it assists [in counting against] the prohibited food. However if it is recognizable, the piece itself is forbidden forever, according to the opinion of some of the commentators.

And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Temurah 33a) that the ashes of meat [that was cooked together] with milk is prohibited; like the ashes of all things that are prohibited to benefit from, which require burial. And they also said (Chullin 111b) that the Torah only prohibited meat with milk, regarding the milk of a living beast. But with the milk of a dead [one], it is not prohibited. And therefore the udder is permitted [to be eaten] with its milk, according to Torah writ. However the Sages forbade it as a fence, until one removes its milk from it, as is elucidated in its place (Chullin 109b). And there are two dispensations for milk that is found in the stomach [of an animal]: one, that it is included in [the category of] the milk of a dead [one]; and also since it is only like refuse more generally — as it has already been digested there. And therefore it is permissible from the outset. And it is not necessary to say that that which is found coagulated there is permissible — as it is certainly like refuse — but even that which is liquid was permitted by the Geonim. One who cooks an embryo in milk is liable, and so [too,] one who eats it. But one who cooks a placenta or skin or tendons or bones or the roots of the horns or hoof nails is exempted. [These] and the rest of the commandment’s details are elucidated in the eighth chapter of Chullin.

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and volitionally eats a kazayit from the meat with milk that has been cooked together is lashed. But if he benefited from it — for example, [if] he gave it or sold it — he is not lashed, since it is possible to [derive] benefit without an act. And we do not administer lashes for anything that does not have an act [involved] with it. And it is possible that he is not lashed even if he rubs with it — since it is not in the way of its enjoyment, as it is not made for rubbing. But there is also an argument about it [to say] that he is lashed.